Couple of things that still get my panties in a bunch with the DJ tale of woe. CASA suspended license and ratings after the accident, why?. The company should, could and would have suspended him as a matter of routine. Internal and external investigations to follow, decisions made and considered action taken. Having identified where the problems lay, a training module, pertinent to those issues could be developed by any competent HOTAC. Pel Air have access to a Be 20 simulator, why was this not considered an option?. Why was any further 'legally justified' additional testing for ATPL deemed necessary?. Sure, test the bloke, test him hard, throw the whole lot at him. The guy stuffed up the flight planning, plenty of curly questions in that subject. But if he survives a fair, legitimate test, game over. Should there be any lingering doubt related to flight or instrument skills, there is the trusty base check. Don't want to use company staff ?, fair enough then use an independent ATO; why is only a hand picked CASA hit man acceptable?, why not allow an independent observer?. A pass is a pass. Game over. Even if CASA had proven grounds to suspend, the word of a HOTAC or independent ATO should be ample evidence of effective cure.
It's not so much what was prepared for James, which although a bit harsh is understandable. It's the caveats and 'sufficiently' rigorous standards to be subjectively assessed against a non published, non existent flight check benchmark, with the specially selected CASA 'examining officer'; pass or fail to be at the discretion of this one individual.
It Is evident from the two Notices that the in-flight assessment was to be conducted with a degree of rigour consistent with the type of operation of accident flight.
While these aircraft will allow the CPL and CIR flight tests to be conducted against the prescribed assessment criteria, they are not sufficiently sophisticated or complex for CASA "to make an effective assessment of skills, ability and competence to hold an ATPL ".
In making this concession, CASA must ensure that the integrity of the necessary ATPL-level assessments is not compromised. The following modification to the Notice of Suspension is therefore suggested:-
A pass assessment would be at the discretion of the assessor.
To reiterate, this is not a change in the ground rules or goal posts, but a trade-off. The use of 'simple aeroplanes' for the CPL and CIR flight tests should be off-set by a rigorous ATPL assessment which, in all probability, would have taken place if the original in-flight assessment had been conducted in the Westwind aircraft as had originally been required
Based on the advice of the FTE and FO is I am satisfied that the approach proposed will address the flight test requirements and recommend this course of action. I also consider that we seek advice from LSD regarding the need or otherwise to amend the notice. I will wait for your thoughts prior to discussions with LSD.
We also need to discuss what if any conditions should be 'considered on James licence should he be successful ln the remaining examination requirements.
Please refer to the advice from Dr Aleck below.
My bold.
Now unless I've missed something, most of the physics applying to flight are about the same for all aircraft. So the recovery from stall technique, or speed control on final, or steep turns, or unusual attitudes etc. could be demonstrated in any light twin. There is little 'technique' difference in flying an ILS or NDB approach in any type, unless of course 140 knots in a jet is faster than in a King air. In any event the man passed the 'normal' tests CPL/MECIR (again). This charade should have ended there, company base check, clear to line operations: end of story.
But no, this pilot must be isolated and must fail, in support the pilot error tale; otherwise there may just be some blowback on the company and CASA. Can't have that, therefore 'he must fail'. The spell weavers get busy and out nothing provide caveats and outlandish, home made tests, which set up the preordained failure. The caveats, procedures and benchmarks are scripted by a non pilot, invented by his two sidekicks and probably the tea lady. All to re qualify a reasonably competent, qualified pilot who had already ticked all the mandatory boxes not once, but twice. He may be the roughest, laziest most hopeless driver in history, but a pass is a pass. Since when was it accepted that any fair test could be hammered into a no pass at any price scenario. The mutt was qualified, but now he has to jump through even more hoops of an extraordinary nature. Remember, there is no flight test required for the issue of ATPL.
Layer upon layer of justifying non existent requirements which, even if they could be parlayed into some form of legitimate 'additional testing requirements, could be met in the normal course of events, in house through the HOTAC or independent ATO.